Raising a problem: what managers make possible
A problem may be known on the ground without ever reaching the team manager. For SHR — Swiss Human Resources' « Management de proximité » programme, the question is specific: how can raising a problem become less risky for the person reporting it?
What the literature establishes
Amy Edmondson (1999, Administrative Science Quarterly) finds an association between team psychological safety and learning behaviours, including discussing mistakes and seeking help. Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. It means neither constant comfort nor the removal of standards.
Openness is judged through behaviour
James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris (2007, Academy of Management Journal) show that managerial openness is associated with employees voicing suggestions intended to improve how the organisation operates. Their analyses are consistent with psychological safety playing a mediating role in this relationship. The issue is therefore not simply to provide a channel for speaking up, but to make it credible that using it will not put the employee at risk.
The hasty conclusion
One might infer that managers should welcome every suggestion and avoid any disagreement. These studies do not warrant that conclusion: being able to speak without excessive interpersonal fear does not mean that every suggestion must be adopted. A reasoned response can maintain standards while separating discussion of the problem from judgement of the person. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot settle
These field studies are not randomised trials that isolate the effect of a particular way of responding. They also examine related but distinct issues: collective learning and suggestions for improvement are not equivalent to every form of safety reporting. Finally, an increase in reported problems may reflect greater freedom to speak rather than deteriorating work conditions, so their number alone cannot assess the manager.
A practical check in Sion
As an exercise in the « Management de proximité » programme, a team based in Sion could keep an anonymised log of reported difficulties and responses for four weeks, without replacing mandatory reporting procedures. Whether in hydropower, healthcare, viticulture or alpine tourism, the measure would be the proportion of reports receiving, within a previously agreed deadline, a documented response specifying the action taken or the reason for taking no action. The calculation is verifiable: the number of reports meeting these criteria divided by the number whose response deadline has passed. This indicator measures the traceability of responses, not psychological safety itself; having no reports would support a conclusion of neither success nor failure. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Frontline Management in Sion
- frontline management
- Sion
- research
- training sion